On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 08:30 -0500, Florin Iucha wrote:> On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 04:49:31PM -0500, Florin Iucha wrote:> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 05:30:42PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:> > > > I'm far from the machine right now, so I will do some more tests> > > > tonight, but right now, the new patchset is not good. What is the> > > > difference between reverting the patch you sent yesterday and your> > > > current fifth patch? I assume the other four are identical, right?> > > > > > The only difference is the way in which we handle retries of an NFSv4> > > request: the new patch disconnects if and only if a timeout has> > > occurred, or the server sends us garbage.> > > > I have to mention that I rebased to the head of the tree> > (895e1fc7226e6732bc77138955b6c7dfa279f57a) before applying your> > patches, in order to test what I expect the official tree to be.> > > > Tonight I'll test this kernel once more, then go back to 21-rc7 and> > apply your 5 patches and re-test.> > It passed big-copy, and the copy run from the gnome-session while I> did my morning light browsing, email reading, etc.> > kernel:> 895e1fc7226e6732bc77138955b6c7dfa279f57a> > patches:> linux-2.6.21-001-cleanup_unstable_write.dif> linux-2.6.21-002-defer_clearing_pg_writeback.dif> linux-2.6.21-003-fix_desynchronised_ncommit.dif> linux-2.6.21-004-fix_nfs_set_page_dirty.dif> linux-2.6.21-005-fix_nfsv4_resend.dif> > Regards,> florin

Thanks! Did you ever find out what had happened to the test that hunglast night?